I'm nor really concerned which way this topic goes. I think we've had the marriage equality argument enough time already but if people wanted to again that'd be fine. I'm more interested in complaining about rediculous and weak arguments. I want people who oppose my view to actually make some effort to express theirs rationally.

One argument that's irked me for a while is: "The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society or any other type of relationship."This was used as an argument against same sex marriage whereas I wouldn't say anything differently to promote marriage equality

And then today I stumbled upon this one:"Neither polyandrous nor same-sex 'marriages' are likely to become widespread, but they will further compromise social stability. Think of it this way: A man and a woman join in a permanent relationship, and they with their children form a triangle. Their children grow up and join others to form more triangles. The most stable shape known to geometry, multiple triangles can bear substantial weight and even make up for a certain number of broken shapes within the framework. But when too many triangles break, introducing other shapes into the foundation will only cause it to collapse that much sooner."

This offends me both as someone who supports marriage equality and as an architectural drafter.

Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 12:00 amPosts: 719Location: Just before the river bend!

Ooh, ooh, just saw this article yesterday. Apparently, I was supposed to accidentally get pregnant before marrying my husband, because the only reason anyone could need marriage is to provide a stable environment in which to raise the kids they accidentally created in a fit of passion. My bad.

So a totally boring middle-class heterosexual couple that has TWO children has created a quadrilateral! Society, meet collapse.

On another message board I frequent, I am pretty sure that one of the members is a polyamorous gay man with two children. His kids have three daddies, which is kinda cool. I used to be opposed to poly marriages because in my pop cultural experience, such arrangements always consisted of a king-and-his-miserable-concubines (a common staple of historical soap operas). Turns out I just needed to see some real life counter-examples to convince me that egalitarian poly relationships could exist.

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:42 amPosts: 1958ICQ: 8854007Yahoo Messenger: jorodrynLocation: Well since the universe exands infinitely in all directions, The center of the universe.

My stance is that the government should not be involved in marriage. However since it is we will never get rid of them, so if the government legalizes one form of alternative marriage they have to legalize all of them between consenting adults, including polygamous ones. I think that is a very straight forward and rational view.

My stance is that organised religion should not be involved in marriage. However since it is we will never get rid of them, so if organised religion recognises one form of alternative marriage they should probably recognise all of them between consenting adults. I think that is a very straight forward and rational view.

As a libertarian (thus prizing contracts above all human emotion, natch) who loves incense-drenched high church weddings, I am obviously ridiculously on board with marriage encompassing a relationship among n consenting adults (n being an integer greater than 1).

Church marriages and state marriages should get divorced. It's a common pattern, that some service, that has been performed by the church/priesthood gets a secular twin, that develops different. Like in ancient times priests also served as scientists, doctors, judges, scribes ect. Now it happens with marriage. It de facto already has happened, it's just that some religious groups want to keep state marriage in line with their own church marriage.

And given state marraige has a lot more traction, where the rubber meets the road, when it comes to actually enforced rights and duties in the here and now, most people think of state marriage, if they just hear marriage, so attempts to reserve the term marriage for chruch marriages is a fight against windmills, that i think will eventually be lost, even if state marriages get called civil unions in legalese.

And state marriages are no longer coitus licences, because in modern states you don't need such licences, though i guess that notion still needs some time to sink in. They are contracts that specify certain rights and duties among the partners, that are most usefull for people, who want to ecconomical interactact as group with the rest of the world. A classical family with parents and children is a typical example and will most likely stay the most common example. Other sensible uses exist as well.

One example: My grandmother on my fathers side was widdowed during WWII. She raised my father together with her unmarried sister. My father de facto had 2 mothers. If they had (state-)married, the legal constructions would have been closer to what that family actually lived, which in a couple of minor issues, would have made things easier. And i don't think even the most social conservatives would disaproved of that family setup.

Marriage is a culturally defined arrangement, and I don't think it's the role of government to define culture. A consensual relationship between people is no one else's business -- insofar as groups of two or more people act as a socioeconomic unit, that can be covered by contracts (as arcosh describes) abstracted from the personal nature of the group. Leave "marriage" to be defined organically.

Marriage is a legal state, that's why governments have been overseeing it for thousands of years. Removing the sex discriminations is a very different animal from rewriting all of the inheritance and relationship laws.

Neither polyandrous nor same-sex 'marriages' are likely to become widespread, but they will further compromise social stability. Think of it this way: A man and a woman join in a permanent relationship, and they with their children form a triangle. Their children grow up and join others to form more triangles. The most stable shape known to geometry, multiple triangles can bear substantial weight and even make up for a certain number of broken shapes within the framework. But when too many triangles break, introducing other shapes into the foundation will only cause it to collapse that much sooner.

Er, at best, this only works with single child families. I grew up in a pentagon and now live in a triangle. Unless you count the pets, then it's a sort of triangle extended upon the pet dimension.

This argument is so bad I don't even know where to begin. Just the geometry is bad. Stable shape? Really? What shape are ball bearings?

I think the best conclusion that can be drawn is that the opposition to marriage equality is in such disarray that they at the Gish Gallop phase. The only move they have left is a torrent of inanity.

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:42 amPosts: 1958ICQ: 8854007Yahoo Messenger: jorodrynLocation: Well since the universe exands infinitely in all directions, The center of the universe.

Silly Green Monkey wrote:

Marriage is a legal state, that's why governments have been overseeing it for thousands of years. Removing the sex discriminations is a very different animal from rewriting all of the inheritance and relationship laws.

the legal state of marriage stemmed from socio-religious practices and were not initially overseen by governments at all, although the practices were recognized by governments, which is completely different than what we have today.

Marriage is a legal state, that's why governments have been overseeing it for thousands of years. Removing the sex discriminations is a very different animal from rewriting all of the inheritance and relationship laws.

the legal state of marriage stemmed from socio-religious practices and were not initially overseen by governments at all, although the practices were recognized by governments, which is completely different than what we have today.

Read Marriage: A History. Linking marriage to religion is a 13th century development arising from the need of the Catholic Church to regulate the alliances of European royalty. Up until the 19th century, the purpose of marriage was to determine property rights and legitimacy for inheritance. Marriage as a romantic institution is a 20th century invention.

Removing the sex discriminations is a very different animal from rewriting all of the inheritance and relationship laws.

What are the laws that would have to change (fundamentally; e.g. it's not that different to say "your spouse can't be made to testify against you in court" versus "your spouses can't be made to testify against you in court")? That sounds like a challenge the way I worded it, but I'm really just asking. It's not something I've informed myself on to any useful degree.

Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:42 amPosts: 1958ICQ: 8854007Yahoo Messenger: jorodrynLocation: Well since the universe exands infinitely in all directions, The center of the universe.

waffle wrote:

Jorodryn wrote:

Silly Green Monkey wrote:

Marriage is a legal state, that's why governments have been overseeing it for thousands of years. Removing the sex discriminations is a very different animal from rewriting all of the inheritance and relationship laws.

the legal state of marriage stemmed from socio-religious practices and were not initially overseen by governments at all, although the practices were recognized by governments, which is completely different than what we have today.

Read Marriage: A History. Linking marriage to religion is a 13th century development arising from the need of the Catholic Church to regulate the alliances of European royalty. Up until the 19th century, the purpose of marriage was to determine property rights and legitimacy for inheritance. Marriage as a romantic institution is a 20th century invention.

marriage had religious conotations long before the catholic church was involved.

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.

wiki wrote:

There were several types of marriages in ancient Roman society. The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.

wiki wrote:

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required.

wiki wrote:

With few local exceptions, until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.[53][54] The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum